Modern Science in the form of Quantum mechanics has shown that you can actually get sub-atomic particles coming out of nothing with no cause and hence no interdependent arising. Does this cancel out a fundemental Buddhist doctrine or interdependence?

metta

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

1. No, because cause and effect still applies to anything bigger than sub-atomic particles. 2. No, because Dependent Origination is about what has been mentally constructed, not about the external world.

1. No, because cause and effect still applies to anything bigger than sub-atomic particles. 2. No, because Dependent Origination is about what has been mentally constructed, not about the external world.

Best wishes, Vincent.

Thanks, this was kinda my thinking as well

However the sub-atomic is connected to the macroscopic are they not?

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

As far as I know, the appearance and disappearance of sub-atomic particles is not that well-understood that one can definitively say that they "come out of nowhere without any cause". M-theory( a version of string theory) purports that particles disappear into hidden dimensions( this is far from being proved). This might be a reason why Gravity is a "weak" force, because it is being shared by other dimensions and possibly other universes. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN, is going to test this hypothesis next year.

Hi DBThat is my understading also, they in all likelyhood come frm somewhere but where?

although one reasongravty is so week is becase ihas no fixed point(s) like magnetism has its polls, an other forces ave their fixed points (lack of better way to dscribe it) so gravity isn't as strong in apearance becase of that, not because it isn't as strong!

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Dont they come into being in dependence upon the observance of them coming into being? I am under the impression that at the quantum level it is whether or not we measure an event that creates the particularities of the event.

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

Although I don't know much of String Theory, what I understand is as follows:

Gravitons are hypothetical particles associated to gravity. String theory predicts the existence of these particles as vibrating closed strings. M-theory deals with the so-called "D-branes", which are models for our universe(s?), and gravitons, which are not "stuck" to these D-branes can leak out to other D-branes, thus causing weakness in gravitational force. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

As far as analogues to magnetic poles, electric charge monopoles were recently produced in the lab. But for the other forces, esp. strong and weak nuclear forces, I don't know whether such a concept exists.

1. No, because cause and effect still applies to anything bigger than sub-atomic particles. 2. No, because Dependent Origination is about what has been mentally constructed, not about the external world.

Best wishes, Vincent.

Wrong. The " external world " and " internal world" both arise dependently.

Hi DBYeah frommemory that is how it was explained to me in brief, but I think graatons are prove aren't they???

anyway yeah most of us aren't scientists here, andthe rudimentary knowledge some of us have may be adequate for a bit of fun conjeture it isn't adequate to actuly disern the truth of the subject. if you want science go to a scientst forum! or a science class?

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Edit: simple answer, no. There's a lot of misunderstanding about quantum physics floating around here (it's normal, don't worry!) and I'm not sure if trying to condense four years of physics lectures into one post would benefit anyone. I suppose you could look up the 'principal of equivalence' and realise that quantum field theory is a predictive model not a practical mechanism, then learn the difference between the observer principal and Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, but how is any of this helpful for liberation from suffering?

Last edited by Mawkish1983 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

I suppose I'll do this one post at a time. Don't really want to spark a massive discussion about each post but I reckon this is the best way to go so I don't miss anything.

clw_uk wrote:Modern Science in the form of Quantum mechanics...

Quantum mechanics is well over 50 years old now. Just sayin'.

clw_uk wrote:...has shown that you can actually get sub-atomic particles coming out of nothing with no cause

Really? A better way of interpreting quantum field theory is that the concept of 'nothing' does not exist in nature. What are particles anyway? They are a construct, a model to explain observed phenomena... quantum physics deals with probability distribution functions, the idea of 'particles' in QM is, basically, meaningless.

So I've heard from the news, but the machine was really designed to search for the Higg's boson. How far the machine's use can be pushed remains to be seen. Personally, I think the media hype about the LHC is great for publicity and funding potential... but often leads the public into believing it'll heal the blind and walk on water etc... etc... etc. Bottom line, it's a collider, nothing more. Finding particles is all it can do.

Quantum physics is not string theory. The idea that the force of gravity is conveyed via a virtual exchange particle, which is a closed harmonic string is string theory... not QM. This thread is about QM. QM follows the standard model: Higg's boson is in the standard model, the graviton is not.